text:
What is preferred in an emergency landing: a road or a cornfield?
When faced with the situation of a power off emergency landing, how do you best select your location to land?
At what point is a road too small or the crosswind too great to attempt a safe landing and instead select a corn field or such? Should the road even be considered?
EDIT: Also, how does plane size and build factor into the decision?

Really depends on what you are flying, what's growing, what season and what the roads are like. Our Cessnas have used gravel roads a couple of times, either due to problems aloft or at the airport (bad weather). In the Alberta prairies finding a side road to land on is no problem whatsoever. 100 and 200-series Cessnas have fairly narrow fixed gear that can take an amazing amount of abuse, don't know about other types.
A real cornfield, with the corn fully grown, will destroy a light aircraft. The plants are 2-3m high with a hard, heavy log of corn at the top. Hit a couple of thousand of them at 100km/h..... (Skydiving centers in corn country have firm advice for landing in the corn: keep your legs crossed.)
Ripe canola is also nearly 2m high and is a bushy plant interwoven with it's neighbors. You'll probably flip over forward. Wheat is the best choice.

... and freshly harvested wheat fields are even better, but of course this is a strictly seasonal thing.

... and plowed fields are only any good if you land along the furrows, I hear.

You say that corn will destroy a light aircraft, which I can believe. Regardless, will that crash be more or less survivable than a different alternative, such as skidding off of a thin road into a ditch or hitting power lines next to a road?

Of course it depends heavily on where you are. My background is the Alberta prairies, where the roads are straight and level with lots of space on either side. North of Thunder Bay is challenging for a working helicopter. However, as a pilot you should know what is below you and choose appropriately - there is no single correct answer.

If I had the option of a field, I'd take it. For small planes, roads are usually wide enough from shoulder to shoulder to not pose more of a problem in terms of cross wind landings than with a regular runway, but they are dangerous for a number of other reasons.

People and vehicles. Your first priority should be to not take any innocent bystanders with you in your crash. With the engine out, they won't hear you coming either as in the unfortunate incident in Venice, Florida the other day.
Poles, posts, and other obstacles along the side of the road. Power and telephone lines often run along roads if you're in a part of the world where they're still above ground. Road signs and other obstacles are bound to follow along the road ready to rupture your fuel tanks and throw a spark in the mix, bigger roads have bill-board sized signs going across the road as well. A good example caught on camera is the glider that attempted a road landing, only to have the wing catch a mail box.
Bigger roads often have a median barrier to separate traffic. It helped the Gimli glider slow down, you probably won't be so lucky.

I'd go for the road before the trees, but that's about it.

A lot of rural roads (even paved ones) aren't more than 25 feet wide, which is less than the wingspan of a C152. That's a very small landing target. Throw in some of the obstacles you mention, and that makes landing on a road pretty scary.

The road may be less than the wingspan but it's wider than the gear, which is what counts. If you can't put the nosegear on the centerline in average weather you need to spend some time doing circuits.

As a glider pilot, I think a lot about landing in fields, and do it moderately routinely.
As has been commented, the answer to "where to go" depends dramatically on the aircraft that you're in.
A cornfield is a almost-guaranteed crash for a fixed undercarriage nose-wheel aircraft.    But it's probably a nice soft bed for a jumbo.
If we limit ourselves to aircraft with less than two engines, the main factors that come into play are:

Retractable under carriage
Nose wheel or tail dragger
High or low wing configuration

Retractable undercarriage affects your choice of outlanding, because it gives you the opportunity to take the wheels away from a grabby crop (or water).
Nose wheel or tail dragger affects your choice because it affects which part of the aircraft will hit the grabby crop first, and affects the centre of gravity of the configration at the time this happens.    You want tail-first low CofG in a grabby crop.
High or low wing configuration affects the choice because a low wing configuration means that the posts on the side of a single lane road are significant, and a crop can grab them.
The "types" of outlanding choices that you have fall into categories that include:

Empty fallow field
Stocked field (and whether the stock is spread out or in one corner)
Recently harvested wheat - low
Recently harvested wheat - high
Corn/canola
Vines
Road

Each of these (and choices similar) have different characteristics, and the choice "chart" for each is different depending on the aircraft configuration variables mentioned above.
It may surprise you that corn and canola are grouped together, given that corn has massive cobs, and canola does not.    But actually the major factor for this type of crop is it's depth and "grabby-ness".   Canola is only marginally better to land in than corn, because it is not as deep.    But is is just as grabby.
This is why corn/canola is a certified crash for a nose-wheel fixed undercarriage aircraft.   Unless you are a gun pilot with a cunning plan to get around it - in which case your approach will be anything but normal - that crop is going to grab your mainwheels and you're going in nose first: bang.
In a taildragger, you have the opportunity to come in nose-high and have the tail-wheel grab first.   In this instance, depending on the stall-speed of your aircraft (IE how fast you are going when this happens) it might turn into a "landing" instead of a "crash".
But if you have low wings, then you're still in trouble, because the chances are quite reasonable that this grabby crop will grab a wingtip, and boom - crash.
On a road, if you have high wings, then you are in good shape.
You asked "should a road ever be considered?".  ONLY IF there is NO traffic.    In a small aircraft, with less than a handful of passengers, you have no right to risk the life of people travelling on a road, which is what you will be doing if you put down on it while they are driving on it.   If you suprise just a single car doing country road speeds, that driver can end up rolled in a ditch.
So ONLY if I had a high wing aicraft with a deserted straight road would I consider that - and then it is actually quite attractive.
(Edit: in case it isn't obvious, vines are death).

Ha, your idea that a corn field is probably good for a jumbo jet got confirmed today by the successful crash landing around Moscow in a corn field.

It depends on many factors. If you have plenty of height, you have time to consider many things.
If you need to react immediately, I would choose the field, you will probably cause significant damage to crop & aircraft, but will most likely walk away. I haven't tried it yet (:-)), but would imagine that it would be similar to landing the plane in water.
If you have a clear, straight road with no obstacles (people, traffic, hedges, power lines, etc) and reasonable wind angle, I would choose the road.
My grass, dirt, beach landing experience (which dates me) was mainly with Rallye (Minerva, MS. 880), Piper Colt, and various small Cessnas (150, 152, 172). While landing off pavement is much more fun, there are many more factors to consider, so if you have the opportunity, I would go for pavement...
(As an aside, we carried an electric fence in the plane to stop cattle from rubbing against the plane in grass fields.)


text:
Can you identify this Chicago(?) aircraft incident involving loss of control?
Many years ago I listened to an ATC tape of an aviation incident involving a commercial aircraft that had some type of control loss, I think in Chicago. After several attempts to set up for an approach, the aircraft landed safely. Despite extensive searching I haven't been able to identify the incident. Can anyone help?
Here's what I remember about the incident.

I am not thinking of United 232.
The aircraft had some kind of control problem - I don't remember exactly what the nature of the problem was (hydraulic / flight control issues).
It was a commercial aircraft.
It happened at least 10 years ago and possibly more.
I believe, but am not positive, that the incident happened in Chicago and the aircraft landed either at O'Hare (KORD) or Midway (KMDW).
A video is/was available that included ATC conversation with the aircraft. The video also showed a radar replay/simulation.
The aircraft makes several attempts to set up for an approach, circling around a few times.
The controller had to assist the pilot with establishing and maintaining the glide path, and at some point someone makes a comment about flying like the space shuttle.

Didn't find anything on ASN that seemed to match either MDW or ORD from 10 to 30 years ago.

American 96 kinda fits. There's a simulation of it on Youtube. They landed in Detroit, tho, and they didn't have to circle multiple times.

@Machavity Good suggestion, but no I don't think that's the one. I think the video I saw was a genuine FAA or NTSB radar replay that also included the ATC audio. It may have included the ATC position's coordination channels too but my memory is fuzzy in that. The best clue I have is the Space Shuttle comment but I can't find it in any transcripts so far.

Maybe TWA 841 from 1979?  As with AA96, though, they landed in Detroit, but, according to the NTSB report, they did circle above the airport at least once...

I am afraid you may never find it - there is simply too much information to search for. It is like trying to find a car crash after 10 years. Unless you remember some very specific details, there are simply too many candidates.

It wasn't in Chicago, but might you possibly be thinking of Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8? They lost a propeller which impacted the fuselage causing major controllability problems, and eventually landed with difficulty in Anchorage.

After almost 5 years of searching for the answer, I think you could be refering to American Eagle 230 at Chicago O'Hare, which happend on december 27, 2000. The aircraft was an Embraer 135.
I could not find the video, but here is evidence it once existed.
The Wayback Machine does seems to have a copy of it, but since it is an .exe executable in a zip file, I am not touching it even with a long stick.
The aircraft was pitching up steeply due to trim problems, and to get the aircraft to descent, the pilot used steep banks ('50 or 60 degrees'). They also executed a 360° turn to get lower for landing. I could see how this may have felt analogous to the Space Shuttle, which involves flying S-turns and then a 270° turn to align with the runway.
The NTSB report with Incident Number CHI01IA055 says:

The captain said that during takeoff from O'Hare International Airport (ORD) the airplane
accelerated normally, rotated, and "jumped into the air". At 800 feet agl, the captain called for
the climb checklist. It was about this time that the captain noticed that he could not trim nose
down. The captain had the first officer check his trim switch and the backup system. They did
not respond. The captain elected to bring the airplane back to ORD. The captain said that both
he and the first officer had their control yokes pushed forward to the stop and were still
climbing. The captain said he was finally able to stop the climb and level the airplane at
approximately 8,000 feet. The captain said they declared an emergency and referred to the
Pitch Trim 1 and 2 Failure checklists. The checklist directed they lower flaps to 9 degrees.
"When we brought in the flaps, the aircraft pitched way nose high. We were out of control."
The captain regained control of the airplane and had the first officer retract the flaps. The
captain said they lowered the landing gear. It improved the airplane's stability slightly. They
pulled and reset the trim circuit breakers twice. These actions did nothing. The captain said he
lined up for an approach to runway 9R. The captain determined he was too high to land, so he
executed a 360-degree descending turn. On completion of the turn, the captain said they
needed to slow down so they deployed the spoilers. The captain said the airplane abruptly
pitched way up. The captain said he and the first officer pushed both yokes forward. The
captain advanced the throttles, and retracted the spoilers. "That second, I banked hard left, 50
to 60 degrees as I recall, and chopped the power. It took all our abilities to get the nose down."
After they got the airplane back under control, the captain said approach control informed
them that runway 4R was straight ahead. The captain elected to land on runway 4R. The
captain said he left the airplane configured as it was (landing gear down, flaps and spoilers
retracted) and flew a long shallow approach. "I said to myself, God please let me land this
airplane. Over the runway, I chopped the power and let it settle on the runway." A postincident examination of the airplane's spoiler control unit revealed that when the spoilers were
given the command to retract, the unit was not sending an input to the horizontal stab control
unit (HSCU) to put in 1 unit of nose down stabilizer trim. Examinations of the trim system
components and the other airplane systems revealed no anomalies. Following the incident, the
airplane's manufacturer revealed that the horizontal stab actuator was determined to be
inadequate to move the horizontal stabilizer in all flight conditions. "The incidents are most
likely caused when the flight crew fails to trim the airplane after takeoff before reaching a
certain airspeed where the air loads on the stabilizer may overpower the trim actuator,
resulting in the horizontal stabilizer not responding to the pitch trim command from the flight
crew." The manufacturer issued an alert service bulletin mandating the installation of a
cockpit placard and revisions to the airplane flight manual establishing a maximum speed of
160 knots to pitch-trim after takeoff. The FAA issued an emergency AD mandating the
installation of the cockpit placard and revisions to the airplane flight manual. The FAA has
also tasked the manufacturer to make design changes that will enable the trim actuator to
handle increased load limits. The FAA has also mandated changes that will provide improved
pitch trim failure indications and ergonomic improvements of the yoke trim switches.

That could well be it: all the pieces fit. Wise choice not to touch the .exe. Let me research it a bit and I'll accept the answer. How did you dig this up, out of curiosity? Thanks in any case! (BTW it seems to be EGF230, not 130?)

@TypeIA I was looking at ATC related questions that weren't answered and yours popped up. Since loss of control incidents are of some interest to me (I am working on 4D trajectory based air traffic control of unmanned aircraft, and looking for cases where aircraft may suddenly need to deviate from their deconlicted routing). Combining the two, I justified putting a bit of time into it and I found this paper from NASA. It includes a list of all LOC accidents and incidents between 1996 and 2010.

I searched the table for KORD and found the flight. A bit of googling did the rest.

I can confirm now this is what I was thinking of. Well done!

@TypeIA Thank you for that bonus, you didn't have to do that, I appreciate it.

I think coming through on a 5 year old question with the right answer about what seems to be a pretty obscure - or at least not widely publicized - incident rises to the level of a special bounty. It also never hurts to suck up to the mods.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why don't aeroplanes automatically put out engine fires?
When an engine fire is detected the fire handle lights up and the pilot pulls it to extinguish the fire.
Why doesn't it do that automatically?
Why does the pilot have to pull the handle?

Shutting off the computer is difficult from a technical implementation standpoint. You're handing over a lot of power to the computers and sensors letting it shut down an engine, where these usually do not have access and control. This is certainly not always a good idea.

Pulling the fire handle is a pretty aggressive move: It will typically disable hydraulics, electrical power, and bleed air coming from that engine. If you're not prepared for it, it can end badly.

The engine will often be partially functional, depending on the type of failure. If you get dual engine fire indications, you'd probably wait with shutting them down, if doing that at all. This sort of behaviour would have to be coded into the flight computers.

I don't think there are any catastrophic consequences of not switching the engine within 8 seconds rather than maybe 2 seconds. It does not make a great difference. To set off the detectors, it must already have spread a little. I don't think you could do it much faster with the pilot staying updated on what's going on.

Needless to say, computers sometimes get things wrong. There is a human level to check what's going on before proceeding.

There are times when you don't want the computer doing it's own thing. Airbus states that:

If an engine fire occurs during takeoff or go-around, the Pilot Flying shall first establish and stabilise the aircraft on a safe climb path and then proceed with the ENG FIRE procedure.

Footnote:
It could certainly be done, but with the pilot-computer relationship on current flightdecks it's not a good idea.

Besides which, perhaps the pilot wants the engine to be on fire...

There are a few reasons why this might not be a good idea:

An engine fire in a typical jet aircraft does not necessarily need to be shut down immediately.  Most of the jets that I have flown include a concept along the lines of "Shut down the engine if you are not in a thrust critical situation."  There is a saying that you never want to accomplish anything fast in a jet airplane (other than put on your oxygen mask if the cabin depressurizes).  It is possible that shutting an engine down could put you in a worse situation than letting it burn a little longer while you climb above an obstacle.
There are times when there is a false indication of a fire.  This could be caused by a faulty sensor or a hot bleed air leak on the engine.  In this case, you don't always need to shut the engine down.  Some aircraft include reducing the power to idle first to see if the fire indication goes away.
We don't want a faulty computer to shut down a perfectly good engine.  Many fire handles are mechanically connected to the fuel shutoff valves making it so that it is nearly impossible to "accidentally" activate this feature.  This design also allows you to shut down the engine even if there is no electrical power whatsoever.

For the non-pilots, can you further explain Many fire handles are mechanically connected to the fuel shutoff valves making it so that it is nearly impossible to "accidentally" activate this feature. Does that mean you have to shut off fuel first, then shut down the engine, or does shutting down the engine automatically shut off fuel flow (which seems like a good idea in any situation)?

@FreeMan What I meant by that point is that as you pull the handle, it turns off the fuel flow by mechanical means.  So even without electrical power (in which case an "automatic" system wouldn't work) you can shut the engine down using the fire handle and stopping the fuel.

You think about the danger of a fire. The engine is still fed with fuel and the fire maybe damages other parts of the aircraft or leads to an explosion. For sure these danger is real, but on the other hand we are talking about losing an engine, half the thrust of modern airliners. There are two reasons, I can think of, why this is not done automatically.

Even though the engine is on fire it is still producing thrust. Not as much as a good engine, with an extremely high probability to fail completely and for sure a bunch of other risks, but still thrust you maybe need to clear obstacles, or to escape any other danger. Think about an engine fire occurring during take off (past $V_1$), on initial go-around, or while escaping a downburst, situations you really don't need a loss of thrust. Also on takeoff roll prior reaching $V_{MCG}$ (minimum control speed on ground) you first like to have your directional control and the possibility to safely decelerate the aircraft prior to securing the engine.
For sure you are aware that it is a hard decision to shut down an engine and also my first point will remember you of some of the dangers doing it, but in some situations (e.g. fire) it have to be done to prevent further damage. This decision should not be done by computer because this would just be an extra chance that something goes wrong. This system would need a lot of logics, not only 'over temperature -> disconnect the engine, shoot a bottle'. Why should this be done by a computer, which possibly extinguishes a good engine during climb out, only because of a faulty indication, or a computer error if there are two well trained pilots capable to deal with the situation?

You already mentioned the 'flow' how to extinguish an engine fire on most modern airliners. Identify the problem, close the throttle (cut off the fuel) pull the fire handle, see what happens, eventually shoot a fire bottle, or even the second. That's really no hard work but a bunch of factors which needs to be taken into account. In my eyes this is still a job which should be in the hand of the flight crew.

The other answers here do a good job of explaining why the pilot should be able to decide when and if to put out an engine fire. This affects other design considerations as well. The potential for fire on an airplane is taken very seriously.
The pilot may decide to not put out a fire right away, but the fire suppression systems could also fail. To address this risk, airplanes are designed to minimize as much as possible the danger posed by a fire. This is described in AC 20-135:

a. The primary objectives of fireproof and fire resistant materials and components are to contain and isolate a fire and prevent other sources of fuel or air from feeding the existing fire, and to ensure that components of the engine control system will function effectively to permit a safe shutdown of the engine or APU and safe feathering of the propeller.

Components in fire zones near the engine or APU are required to be fireproof or fire resistant, which means maintaining functionality in the following conditions:

Fireproof: 2000°F flame (+/-150°F) for 15 minutes minimum
Fire resistant: 2000°F flame (+/-150°F) for 5 minutes minimum

Engine controls are generally required to be fire resistant, allowing the engine to be controlled or shut down and a fire extinguished even up to 5 minutes after a fire starts. Firewalls are generally required to be fireproof, containing the fire long enough to provide the pilot a chance to land the plane, or hopefully for the fire to burn out on its own, before spreading to other areas in the plane. This also allows for the fact that the fire detection system could take some amount of time to detect a fire, depending on the location and severity.
The AC goes into more detail about specific requirements and testing procedures. Of course the FAA has a section of regulations on fire protection for airliners. The goal is to give the crew as much opportunity as possible to ensure the safety of everyone on board as is reasonably possible.

Automation is not always the best idea. There was an incident at an airshow where the pilot was doing a low, slow flyby in a commercial jet (I believe it was one of the newer Airbus models), and he applied full power to climb away, and the computer decided that it was an incorrect control movement. Needless to say, the aircraft crashed.

Were you referring to Air France 296 (A320 crash at Habsheim, 1988)? Not sure whether they would have made it with perfect pilot execution, but it's doubtful that they could have pulled it off without flight envelope protection anyway.

Yep, I believe that's the one, thank you.

The flight computers rejected the elevator command, not the throttle command. The engines responded normally.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Can you be a commercial pilot if you have a criminal record?
Is it possible to become a pilot in the UK with a criminal record?

If you have minor stuff as "3 points on your driving licence", "1000 debt", "Parking ticket", etc. I don't think you will be much affected. But then again, sometimes the decision making is purely discretional. Just like a motorway cop can pull you over and have a serious chat with you, but not necessarily give you ticket. Obviously, if you have been banned as a DUI driver, chances are that you will be rejected

What kind of a commercial pilot do you want to be? Do you want to be a flight instructor? A pilot for an airline? Do you want to tow advertising banners?

@hagubear Are points on a driving license "minor" in this sense? "I was prosecuted for doing bad things while controlling a vehicle" sounds quite serious when you're applying for a job controlling a vehicle in an industry which is very keen on safety.

British Airways has this to say:

If you have been cautioned, warned or convicted of a criminal offence (other than parking offences) we suggest you check whether you will be able to obtain an airside pass by visiting www.dft.gov.uk.
In order to be employed as a pilot with British Airways you will be required to undergo a Criminal Record Check for every country in which you have been a resident, or worked in, for 6 months or more in the past 3 years.

Admittedly, the DFT's website is a maze of information, and it seems very difficult to find any information; I'd suggest giving them a call, to find out for your particular convictions.
Airside Manager has some more detailed information on airside passes, in general.

wording seems to suggest it would depend on the actual crimes (type, number, and timeframe). A conviction for shoplifting is less likely to get your blocked from getting an airside pass than a conviction for drugs traficking I'd warrant to guess for example.

I thought responsibility for the security checks passed from the DfT to the CAA earlier this year?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What was Korean Air 672 doing at the time of Malaysia Air 370's disappearance?
In the first part of this YouTube video, you can see an aircraft supposedly flying 4x faster than the surrounding aircraft, at the time the Malaysian 777 went missing.
After replaying this on Flight Radar 24, KAL672 departs Kuala Lumpa a short while before MAS370. It then does a 180, flies back towards the airport, then appears to do another 180 and rockets across the ocean:

Here are the playback links for 2014-03-07 16:55: KAL672 and MAS370.
Essentially, my question is, what is this oddity that FR24 is showing? (to ward off conspiracy theorist nuts).

Sorry mate, while I get what you want to do, there's no way of explaining the (what is essentially a software-) glitch without speculation (or having access to their database)

@roe Fair enough if that's the case, but I thought someone might've been able to explain it :)

@roe Gotta admit, I think I disagree.  I think this is quite easily explained by the fact that FR24 has random anomolies on almost all flights it tracks routinely (a fact I'm aware of because I'm the weirdo that sites at home, late at night, watching FedEx flights move about the country on FR24...).  To me that is a pretty solid answer, and is also the first answer here.

@JayCarr Sure. Too me that feels like saying "There's a glitch, because there's a glitch". You can't say with certainty what KAL672 was up to. If the question was rephrased to "Why are planes jumping around on flight radar" then ok. At the very least, ask the same question in the title as in the body, as the question has nothing to do with KAL672, and certainly nothing to do with MAS370.

@roe Ah, okay, I see where you're coming from.  Perhaps I'll ask that other question and we can do a merge or something...

to ward off conspiracy theorist nuts - I admire your optimism.  In my experience, their stupidity knows no bounds.

With the way in which it suddenly switched back and forth it appears to be either a software glitch or bad data from one of the feeders.
All aircraft displayed in yellow on FlightRadar24 are detected by volunteers with their own ADS-B receivers, of varying quality in hardware, software and range. When aircraft reach the very edge of someone's receiver range you can occasionally get corrupted data, perhaps showing the aircraft somewhere back along its path or far off it.
Another scenario is when a receiver is having trouble uploading its data to the FR24 servers because of a bad internet connection or similar, so position updates arrive later than they should.
Sometimes the FR24 servers get conflicting info, for the same reason, where one ADS-B feeder is providing good data and the other bad. When that happens you can see the plane seem to jump backwards and forwards until one of the receivers is out of range.
It's something I've seen fairly often, even with my own receivers. FR24 does try to filter the anomalies out but it's a difficult task.

I'd have to agree.  I'd also point out that anyone who has used FR24 for any period of time (to track a friends flight for examples), knows that pretty much every flight will have moments when it jumps around randomly.  Though it can be a fun tool, FR24 is hardly perfect.

the network delay shouldn't matter because ADS-B also transmits the time of day on the plane, and unless FR24 ignores that then it should only use the latest position

@ratchetfreak: I'm pretty sure the timestamp is not included in the ADS-B data. There's not a lot of room in the packet and the time of day can be determined by the receiver when it actually receives the signal.


text:
How do I "sightsee" in a class Bravo airspace?
There are some good sights to see inside of class Bravo airspace. What is the best way to plan and communicate to ATC that my intention is to fly into the airspace to see some specific landmarks?

That's not a real answer so I'll write it as a comment: Please always remember, that controllers there to assist you as a pilot and run a safe and efficient traffic flow. They might be sometimes too busy to aprove your request but you should never (only if it's obviously disturbing or unable to approve) need to hesitate to ask your question.

Just call up ATC on the approach frequency and request flight following to see the location you're interested in.  They'll assign you a transponder code and any restrictions.  For example:

N12345: "Houston approach, VFR request for Cessna 12345"
Houston TRACON: "Cessna 345, say request"
N12345: "Cessna 12345 is at 1200 ft, 3 miles south of Houston Executive, requesting flight following to overfly the Greenway Plaza area for sightseeing, aircraft type is a Charlie 172 slant Golf."
Houston TRACON: "Cessna 345, squawk 4123."
N12345: "squawk 4123 for Cessna 345"
Houston TRACON: "Cessna 345, radar contact. Cleared into Bravo, maintain at or below 3,500, remain north of the University, advise when your sightseeing is complete."
N12345: "Cessna 345 is cleared into Bravo. Will remain at or below 3,500 and north of the University. Will advise when complete."

Notice that it is preferred that you don't give your entire VFR request in the initial callup to avoid overwhelming the controllers if they're busy or not yet prepared to copy your entire request.
Just ask for "VFR request" with your callsign and wait for them to ask for the details.

I've also heard of requesting the "city tour". Are "city tour" or "sightseeing" standard nomenclature for controllers?

I think they'll still understand the intent, even if you were just to say "for aerial photography" as the reason, which I've also heard uttered.

Agreed, I was looking to find out if there exists an official term.

Yeah, in the SF Bay area, we call in and say "Bay Approach, Cessna 1234A, 3 west of Palo Alto with Golf, bay tour". They'll give you a squawk code and probably ask what route you'll be taking. (I'm told that the flight code they usually assign on their computers is "2er")

@EdwardFalk: Except Bay Approach no longer exists. NorCal Approach? :)

yes, its Norcal now. And you don't need to supply ATIS Golf, because he won't know what airport you're talking about. here's a good description of the Bay Tour: http://blog.mikedalrymple.com/2012/03/08/flying-the-bay-tour/

You can also familiarize yourself with helicopter routes for the airspace you're flying in. I fairly frequently go into the BOS class B and almost always use a helicopter route in and out, which helps ATC know exactly what you're referring to.

Is there a good reference online for where to find these?

They'll be on helicopter charts, separate from TACs and sectionals.

This looks like the site to download from, there are only a few areas that have them though (not all Class Bs): http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/VFR/chartlist_heli

SkyVector.com also shows the helicopter charts if you zoom in close enough to an area that has them.  For example, Houston has North and South helicopter charts: http://skyvector.com/?ll=29.931887972659894,-95.29694756249317&chart=217&zoom=5

Helicopter route charts link needs updating, current seems to be https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/productcatalog/vfrcharts/helicopter/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is there a way to prevent (not relieve) the hotspot caused by wearing a headset for long periods of time?
About a year ago, I bought myself a Bose A20.  Within two weeks, I had returned it.
I will be the first to say that the noise reduction for the A20 was fantastic.  The headset was amazingly light, and clarity was superb.  The reason I returned it was because after wearing it for an hour or two, I would start feeling a sharp pain on the top of my head, where the headset rested.  I'm not the only one to have this happen:

Unfortunately, I have decided to return these headsets in the 30 day trial period. After the first week, these headsets started to "hotspot" the top center of my head and became uncomfortable after several straight hours of continuous flying. The sound quality was excellent but it came down to a comfort issue. There were a few annoying things.

Here's another...

On one trip the airplane was equipped with a Bose headset and I thought I would let my wife use it. After 1 hour her head had a bad hotspot and she made me switch. After 30 minutes wearing the Bose I too had a hotspot.

And a quote from the A20 owners manual:

During a long flight, you may feel a slight pressure point, which can be relieved by adjusting the headband position. Your experience with using the headset will help establish a sense of how it should sound and feel.

I wanted so badly to like that headset (in fact, I still do).  My faithful David Clark will be heading back to the factory for repair soon, and I'm willing to give the A20 another chance, if there's a way to keep that top-of-head hotspot from forming.
Is there a way to prevent (not relieve) the hotspot caused by wearing a Bose A20 for long periods of time?

The best way to prevent the "hot spot" pressure point from the headset band is to wear a headset that doesn't have a top band (like this or this). Of course this requires that you be able to wear an in-ear headset, and some people are more bothered by that than by the headband.
Short of wearing in-ear headsets there are numerous different headset band pads you can try - I know at least one person flying with this sheepskin pad.
Some combination of the right headband position and the right pad should make your headset more comfortable for long flights.

I personally use the clarity aloft when I fly, (with a GA-heli adapter when I fly helicopter).  I can't be happier with that headset.  Very comfy, no bad hair day, and very superb passive noise cancelling


text:
What term is the EASA equivalent of the DER in the FAA safety assurance process?
When the FAA approves a hardware or software (or mixed) system for use in an aircraft requiring Type Certification, A Designated Engineering Representative (DER) is selected to work with the developers and apply the safety assurance guidelines (or other alternative means of compliance) needed for approval. Although the DER is not the final authority granting approval, de facto if you fail to satisfy the DER you won't get approval, and if the DER finds that all needed guidelines have been met and all evidence is in order, you probably will.
The EASA process in Europe is very similar, but many of the acronyms and terms they use are different, which brings me to the question:
What is the European (EASA) equivalent of what in America we call the Design Engineering Representative (DER)?

I posted an answer but just noticed you were looking for EASA equivalent of FAA, not FAA equivalent of EASA...

The closest EASA equivalent would be the Design Organisation Approval (DOA). According to EASA:

A Design Organisation Approval is the recognition that a Design Organisation complies with the requirements of Part 21 Subpart J.
Privileges: A DOA holder can

Perform design activities within the scope of approval

Have compliance documents accepted by the Agency without further verification

Perform activities independently from the Agency

Is the DOA generally an organization that develops systems [so that for example Airbus might be a DOA], or an individual or organization that can be hired by such developers to help them meet the requirements and gain approval?

Well, this answer gave me the info I needed to track down what a DOA is and how it differs from a DER.  Thanks.

Note that a DOA is specific to a big or small field. A company may hold a DOA for a specific type of minor modifications, or for design of a full aircraft.

Also note that a similar mechanism, the POA, exist for production approval


text:
How do I select an aircraft mechanic?
So Uncle Bob just died and left me 3.14 million dollas.  Or else I hit the lottery, or what have you.  Whatever the case may be, I've decided that today is the day I buy myself an airplane.  Harrison Ford has one and by God I want one too.  This means that I need a mechanic.
We can assume that I don't already know any mechanics (For the purposes of the question, we can assume I soaked my home in Cristal, tossed flaming $100 bills at it until it burned down, and then moved to Beverly Hills, away from all the little people), so:
How do I find a mechanic or maintenance shop to keep my privately-owned aircraft airworthy?

Can you be more specific about why hiring a mechanic is different or more difficult from hiring any other professional? Finding one usually isn't difficult; finding a good one may be, but that's a slightly different issue and hard to answer properly anyway. And if you're really that rich, you'll delegate finding one to your personal assistant rather waste your own valuable time :-)

@pondlife - The tone and background of the question are just for fun, but the question itself is an honest one. Is it really as easy as opening up the phone book? I have no idea and am hoping someone who's done it can tell me more.

Well, I didn't want to seem humorless but maybe I did :-) Anyway, I've never looked for a mechanic but if I had to I would start by asking the FBO where I usually rent, my usual instructor, maybe a couple of other pilots. Flying really requires you to have contacts like that so it seems like a good place to start.

@SteveV. I like you question and don't agree with the close votes. However, I think you want to emphasize on finding aircraft mechanics, but your question may falsely highlight how can you employ a full-time mechanic.

I upvoted because I laughed at the last paragraph.

The key when selecting an aviation mechanic or shop to maintain your newly purchased plane is "time in type": You would not take a Cessna 172 to the United Airlines maintenance facility at JFK, not would you take an A380 to the local Cessna service center (even though it would be perfectly legal to do so).
If you're buying a new aircraft (of any type) the manufacturer will be able to recommend an authorized service center for you, and you'll probably want to use an authorized service center (especially for warranty work).
If you're buying a used aircraft you can still contact the manufacturer and ask about authorized service centers. They will usually be happy to give you a list of places near you that can work on your aircraft, and who are blessed by the factory to perform warranty service, complete mandatory service bulletins where the manufacturer is supplying parts / covering labor, etc.

Aside from manufacturer recommendations there are a lot of other ways to find a maintenance shop that beat simply asking Google and picking one at random.
For the most common single-engine piston aircraft (your typical Piper Cherokee, Cessna 172/182, etc.) you can almost certainly find a mechanic at your local general aviation airport - ask the FBO where you're storing the plane for recommendations or talk to other pilots on the ramp about who they use for maintenance.
For more esoteric aircraft (high-performance singles, twins, vintage/classic/warbirds, etc.) your best resource is often a type club (e.g. The American Bonanza Society for Beechcraft Bonanzas, or ICS for the Piper Comanche) - Google can help you track down a type club, and the members can help you find mechanics who have experience working on your particular airplane.
Type clubs are also a great source of other information (like where to find parts).

It's very, very easy to hire an aircraft mechanic. Drive to your local airport and explore the less-travelled roads beside the fence. You will find a number of maintenance facilities that can service anything from a Piper Cub to the Concorde. Walk in, say hello.
Small exception: major international hubs tend to be air carrier only. General aviation will be somewhere else, but any maintenance shop will know where the others are - it's a fairly small community.
Also note that uncle Bob's 3.14 million won't buy much. It will get you a really decent piston single or very light twin. Or a high-time turbine in need of some pricy maintenance. Remember that unlike a car, the sticker price on an aircraft is just the edge of the money pit. You make yourself a 5-year budget and spend no more than half on the actual aircraft. If you buy new you can shift it a bit as you won't need any unscheduled maintenance for a while but in the broad scheme of things aviation is not for the financially fainthearted.

While aviation isn't cheap, If you're spending $3.14 million on a decent piston single you might be paying too much.  Purchasing a 2014 top-of-the-line Cessna TTx straight from Cessna is around 750k.  A 2014 Cirrus SR22 (one of the best-selling piston singles in the world) is around 650k.  However, lest we scare off people who want to learn to fly and buy their own airplane, a well-maintained, older Cessna 172 (there are still a lot of them around, Cessna having build 43,000 since 1956) can be had for $50k or less (check out controller.com or barnstormers.com for examples)

If he's buying a Cirrus, new, his 5-year budget would be about 1 mil. That old Cessna would probably need an engine fairly soon, so that's same again, installed. 5 years will be maybe 1/4 million. He's going to have enough left to do a really good world tour.

I believe the best way to seek such a mechanic would be to ask the place you purchased your aircraft, asking the airfield you park your aircraft at or simply googling "Aircraft Mechanic in [insert location]".
If you need a link to local mechanics here is one.

FAA has maintains a list of mechanics. You can download the entire list too.
This page has some related information about mechanics.


text:
What is the effect of non-LASER light sources on pilots?
After all the media coverage about people pointing lasers at commercial aircraft, I started to wonder what was so special about lasers.
It seems to me that the amount of distraction that could be done with a 5mW laser is significantly less than what could be done with something else.
For example, if I bought/borrowed the light beam from the Luxor hotel, put it in my backyard, turned it on, and pointed it at the planes flying out of a major airport, I would expect that pilots might have some more issues with a 4.3 Billion candela beam than with a 5mW laser (right?)
However, I can't find any laws against it, so would this technically be legal?
Alternatively, what if I just wanted to swing that beam around in the sky, and it accidentally crossed the path of a plane?  Are there different laws regarding unintentionally hitting a plane with something like this?

Both of those questions relate to lasers.  I am interested in non-laser sources.  I have edited to clarify.

In the UK, there are generic laws which relate to endangering the safety of an aircraft.  They could you used to prosecute someone for doing something stupid such as this without having to specifically mention what the stupid is.  There are also laws laid down in the AIP that using such a beam of light pointed upwards requires the permission of the CAA and the publication of a NOTAM.  This is required in my home town where cruise ship departures often have ceremonies which include sweeping search lights across the sky.  I would imagine that US federal law includes similar provisions.

What is different with laser is that they remain focused at long distances, hence the power is concentrated on a small area and the energy falls off very slowly with distance, by contrast a non-laser light intensity decreases with the square of the distance. Lasers don't require a powerful source or a lot of electric energy to hurt. But using the Luxor beam at home will need prior contact with your power supplier to increase your capacity. Whatever is made to create a hazard and endanger other's life can result in severe penalties, even if you are just reckless.

@mins Yeah, supplying 315 kW might be a bit of a problem in your backyard. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it's certainly a lot more expensive to operate than a 0.000005 kW laser pointer.

@reirab, I wasn't particularly concerned with the details of HOW to take the Luxor to your backyard...  That's fairly difficult.

Wonder if medium strength photographic flash equipment (think 100 to 1000 watt seconds,  10° or so beam angle), used outside and accidentally shone unto an aircraft, could ever cause problems to a reasonably low flying (few tens to hundreds of meters) aircraft?

@mins While power is concentrated in a laser, a 5mW laser will probably not be powerful enough to reach a plane and still retain a significant portion of its energy. Now, if you had a kW laser, you might be able to hurt a pilot if it manages to get through the windshield, even from that distance, and if you have a mW laser, you're likely to actually damage the aircraft itself, but you're not going to be able to get either of those at your local pet store.

@Forest: The case of a 5 mW source has been evaluated here, and the case of industrial and scientific lasers here. It's quite easy to buy powerful laser sources that are not allowed for use in many countries, e.g. class 4.

@mins From your sources, it's only a distraction at 3,700 feet, and at 11,000 feet, it's indistinguishable from background noise. It'd have to be really close to a plane to do much harm.

The short answer is "If you intentionally pointed the Luxor beam at an aircraft (flying low enough for it to constitute a hazard) you would probably be arrested".  The real question is What would they charge you with?, and the FAA regulations aren't where you want to look for that: You need to look in the "United States Code".
18 U.S.C. 39A makes it an offense to aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. It goes on to define "laser pointer" as:

any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object.

The Luxor beam certainly isn't that, so you're safe there.
Instead you will probably be charged under a creative application of 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(5), which says

Whoever willfully … interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

While this law was originally conceived to deal with in-person threats (kicking down the cockpit door and clobbering the captain with a frying pan) it would not take a very creative US Attorney to make the argument that shining a 40 billion candela light at an aircraft's cockpit would "interfere with or disable" the flight crew, and shows a "reckless disregard for the safety of human life".
Similarly it would not take much creativity to argue that swinging such a beam around in the sky in an area where it may interfere with aircraft operations would also show a "reckless disregard for the safety of human life", unless you took the time to file an appropriate hazard NOTAM.

Note that in my initial statement I said that you would be charged if the aircraft were flying "low enough for it to constitute a hazard" -- as has been pointed out non-coherent light source intensity falls off according to the inverse square law, and with sufficient altitude the Luxor beam is just a bright spot on the ground and doesn't have anywhere near the effects of laser illumination.
The Luxor's beam was in fact part of a study on the effect of lasers and high intensity lights in relation to air traffic safety. That section of this report (and indeed the entire thing) makes for interesting reading.

Alternatively, what if the beam were pointed into the sky, and a plane happened to be in the area where it was pointed?  Are there laws against that?

@StackTracer A beam pointed directly up is not likely to be a hazard to air navigation. If you're doing it right near an airport it would be a nice courtesy to call the tower and advise them (they may publish a NOTAM), but as best I can tell there's nothing specifically illegal about it in the United States as long as you're not violating the laws above. (Note however that there may be local laws on the issue. For example, using any kind of searchlight/beacon in my county requires a permit.)

Even with lasers brightness at non-trivial distances follows the inverse square law. It's just that the initial beam is far more intense than non-laser sources.

The comment by @mins is right on the money by indicating that lasers require much less power to damage and distract than typical lights (whose power density falls off with the square of the distance).  An additional consideration is that, while a Luxor-style beam shining from your yard will certainly get the attention of pilots, it will likely be much easier to trace to its source than a laser beam.  You will likely be contacted.  They may ask you to turn it off, and they may ask you to leave it on, because, while it may be obnoxious, such things are often labeled on the chart because they are uniquely identifiable visual checkpoints.  Such visual checkpoints are named, recorded in the FAA database, and depicted on Terminal charts.
Speaking of the Luxor, I believe there was a visual approach procedure that actually used the Luxor as a visual fix, although I do not see it published with the current procedures.

A simple pointer-type laser will not be as bright as a search light, however, there are more powerful lasers, such as those used in light shows that can be quite dangerous. High power lasers at 500 mW are 100x stronger than a 5mW laser pointer and can seriously dazzle a cockpit, filling it with sparkling light so that nothing else can be seen. Lasers of this power can also burn the retina of the eye if the aircraft is flying low enough.

A simple pointer-type laser will not be as bright as a search light, At what range?

@Simon At any range. Contrary to popular belief, a 5mW laser will not actually damage your eyes (though some lasers marketed as 5mW are actually a fair bit more, unfortunately) unless you stare at it intently for a while. A search light, on the other hand, will cause severe damage if you look directly into it.


text:
What is the maximum amount of noise an aircraft is allowed to generate?
Has the FAA regulated yet the maximum dBs of noise an aircraft's engine is allowed to generate, and what the range of "safe operation" would be? If they have, what are their regulations on it?

The answer can be found in Annex 16 of the ICAO, a copy including the noise limits can be found here (PDF).
Below a little excerpt from the annex:

(a) For acoustical changes to Stage 1 airplanes, regardless of the
  number of engines, the noise levels prescribed under § 36.7(c) of this
  part.
  What are the 'Chapter 2' and 'Chapter 3' aircraft noise classifications?
  Certificated noise levels for larger aircraft are classified by the ICAO 'Standards and Recommended Practices – Aircraft Noise: Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation' into a) Chapter 2 types, characterised by the noisier, low bypass turbofan aircraft and early high bypass turbofan aircraft, and b) Chapter 3 types, characterised by the modern, quieter, high bypass turbofan aircraft. Under European legislation, since 2002, 'Chapter 2' aircraft (of over 34 tonnes maximum take-off weight or with more than 19 seats) have no longer been allowed to operate at European airports. There are separate noise certification schemes for small propeller aircraft and for helicopters.
(b) For any Stage 2 airplane regardless of the number of engines:
(1) Flyover: 108 EPNdB for maximum weight of 600,000 pounds or more;
  for each halving of maximum weight (from 600,000 pounds), reduce the
  limit by 5 EPNdB; the limit is 93 EPNdB for a maximum weight of 75,000
  pounds or less.
(2) Lateral and approach: 108 EPNdB for maximum weight of 600,000
  pounds or more; for each halving of maximum weight (from 600,000
  pounds), reduce the limit by 2 EPNdB; the limit is 102 EPNdB for a
  maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or less.
(c) For any Stage 3 airplane:
(1) Flyover.
(i) For airplanes with more than 3 engines: 106 EPNdB for maximum
  weight of 850,000 pounds or more; for each halving of maximum weight
  (from 850,000 pounds), reduce the limit by 4 EPNdB; the limit is 89
  EPNdB for a maximum weight of 44,673 pounds or less;
(ii) For airplanes with 3 engines: 104 EPNdB for maximum weight of
  850,000 pounds or more; for each halving of maximum weight (from
  850,000 pounds), reduce the limit by 4 EPNdB; the limit is 89 EPNdB
  for a maximum weight of 63,177 pounds or less; and
(iii) For airplanes with fewer than 3 engines: 101 EPNdB for maximum
  weight of 850,000 pounds or more; for each halving of maximum weight
  (from 850,000 pounds), reduce the limit by 4 EPNdB; the limit is 89
  EPNdB for a maximum weight of 106,250 pounds or less.
(2) Lateral, regardless of the number of engines: 103 EPNdB for
  maximum weight of 882,000 pounds or more; for each halving of maximum
  weight (from 882,000 pounds), reduce the limit by 2.56 EPNdB; the
  limit is 94 EPNdB for a maximum weight of 77,200 pounds or less.
(3) Approach, regardless of the number of engines: 105 EPNdB for
  maximum weight of 617,300 pounds or more; for each halving of maximum
  weight (from 617,300 pounds), reduce the limit by 2.33 EPNdB; the
  limit is 98 EPNdB for a maximum weight of 77,200 pounds or less.
(d) For any Stage 4 airplane, the flyover, lateral, and approach
  maximum noise levels are prescribed in Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.4,
  Maximum Noise Levels, and Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.4, Maximum Noise
  Levels, of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex
  16, Environmental Protection, Volume I, Aircraft Noise, Third Edition,
  July 1993, Amendment 7, effective March 21, 2002. [Incorporated by
  reference, see § 36.6].

By the way, the question is tagged FAA and you provided an ICAO answer.  Does the FAA require compliance with the ICAO regulations that you have quoted?

@Lnafziger I believe the FAA uses the same Stage 1 / Stage 2 / Stage 3 categories. (There are also some restrictions on operating Stage 2 aircraft buried in the regs.)

@voretaq7 They do use Stage 1/2/3/4, but the regulations and limits might be different....

@Lnafziger FAR 36 Appendix B seems to match ICAO's numbers (but I've only given it a cursory spot check - reading regulations makes me stabby :-)

If it can be regulated it shall be regulated -- the relevant section of law is FAR 36 - NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION, with a number of advisory circulars as well.
These requirements are aimed mainly at Transport Category aircraft, and the absolute noise level limits are rather high (certainly nothing you'd want to be standing near without hearing protection).
What's probably of more interest to most people are the FAA's guidelines on Airport Noise, and specifically FAA Order 1050-1E, which deals with the noise you are actually exposed to on the ground (rather than what is generated by the plane's engines).
Order 1050-1E goes into great detail on what is considered "acceptable" noise levels for various types of land use around airports.  Airport construction and/or expansion projects are evaluated against these criteria using computational models to ensure that noise levels will not exceed the FAA's guidelines.


text:
What happens after a professional unintentionally crashes in a simulator? Can they be disciplined?
I was wondering about what happens if a professional pilot who's training to fly a major commercial airframe unintentionally crashes during flight time in a simulator? I'm not asking about some physical damage to the simulator itself, just within the simulation.
I would imagine there's a SOP for a post mortem analysis that includes logging/journaling, reviewing simulator data, and taking steps to study why the crash occurred in order to reduce the likelihood of another. Is that right? Can anyone run down the debrief after a sim crash?
Can professional pilots be reprimanded/disciplined or face any punitive consequences due to an unintended simulator crash? If so, under what conditions and what kinds of consequences?

Potential duplicate or related question

Well functioning organizations reserve discipline for willful misconduct.  Making unintentional mistakes generally results in additional training, or eventual termination if standards cannot be met.  But this wouldn't be punitive as the word discipline implies.

Crashing a Level D Full Flight Simulator during a training session is not good. They exist for:

Initial training, of licensed pilots who have not flown the type before and need to become familiar with the controls, systems, handling characteristics and procedures of the particular aeroplane. Usually a series of about thirteen 4-hour sessions.
Recurring training, for pilots licensed on the type, to demonstrate to the authorities that they are competent in handling emergency procedures.

During initial training, the trainees are pilots who are learning new procedures in unfamiliar circumstances, and a crash during training for an engine-out landing does not necessarily have serious consequences - if rapid progress in handling is shown in subsequent sessions. However, if the trainee is the only pilot out of 20 to experience a crash, they may not be hired by the airline.
For recurring training, a crash or failure to carry out an emergency procedure is not good. During the de-brief, the instructor will identify the actions that went wrong, and a re-assessment will be arranged. Failure of this may result in discontinued employment.
So the main consequence of professional unintentional simulator crashes may be professional discharge.

So do you guys train somewhere off the books before you go do it for 'real'?

@Mazura yes especially for the pilots going to take part in the initial training sequence, they would book private sessions in the fixed base trainer. An investment into coming out at the top of the class.

Crashes, or at least wing tip strikes, are not uncommon on an initial jet type course during engine failure training on take off, on what are called "V1 cuts" (engine failure just before or after rotation speed) especially with pilots who are new to swept wing airplanes (if you are slow with the compensating rudder, the plane rolls very hard once the yaw angle gets large).
So a crash on take off during that type of maneuver would be no big deal on an initial, especially for a pilot new to jets.  If a pilot is not able to get the hang of it and, you know, stop crashing, that would be a problem (you'll be expected to get the hang of it on the second or third try).  If you can't be brought up to a safe standard fairly quickly, you'll just get washed out.
A pilot who crashes during V1 cuts on recurrent is a bigger problem.  Everybody has "brain farts" and a single event that is followed by a normal skill demonstration may just be written off as a one-off (although it all goes on the pilot's training record).  Skill deficiencies that are quickly rectified, and are not accompanied by other warning signs, won't hurt you too much. A flub followed by a competent demonstration will just mean a debriefing item after the session.
Skill deficiencies that are kind of borderline, but not bad enough to take someone off flying status, may just mean delays in being upgraded to captain.  An experienced captain who has these sorts of problems on recurrent could face restrictions on operating as PIC or other restrictions as the causes are explored. It usually means something has changed in the person's life.
Pure skill deficiencies, whether they result in crashes or not, won't be punished professionally unless there is willful misconduct or severe personality issues. The training organization will work on correcting the deficiency up to a point.  A much bigger problem is mental attitude deficiencies and personality problems - those will hurt you more than losing control during an engine failure in the sim.
One of the things the airline will be looking for when a new pilot is evaluated for selection is signs that the pilot learns and adapts quickly. During the evaluation, you are just told to perform some maneuvers and "do what comes naturally" without any help from the evaluator. They are looking to see how fast you catch on to things on your own.
One important facet of training is to "make things memorable", and the instructor may allow a crash to occur, say in something like a terrain avoidance maneuver, to make the lesson sink in (depends on the instructor and the training unit's policies - the instructor may just suspend the sim just prior to the final "crash" to avoid having to reboot the machine).
Also, you have to account for the basic realities of sim training.  Sometimes you get pushed to the edge because if you are performing well, the instructor will keep adding pressure until you start making mistakes - it's a basic method of skill evaluation.  At the end of a four hour session, you are pretty worn out mentally and physically, and if a new pilot you may be totally frazzled (I used to joke that it was like 4 hours spent riding in a cement mixer filled with bowling balls, if you had an instructor you enjoyed pushing you hard). A crash near the end of a session, like running into a hillside during a terrain encounter, may just be put down to late-session mental fatigue as you were (quite deliberately) loaded up to burnout.

Isn't one of the reasons for simulator training so that you CAN push things to the limit - either yours or the aircraft's - without breaking expensive airplanes?

Yes but you generally avoid unnecessary crashes during a session mainly because it robs precious minutes waiting for the sim to reboot.   Most the time an instructor will just be ready to freeze it the instant before the actual crash in scenarios where a crash is a potential result.

Which feels worse to the simulator pilot, "crashing" into a mountain or pausing the simulation when the aircraft is 100 m away from "crashing"?

Why does it take longer to reboot after a simulated crash than just before the crash? I would think either way it is just re-loading the initial conditions.

@cxrodgers - it depends on how robust the flight model is. Some flight models barf and wind up generating a NaN that quickly propagates throughout. Others are designed to “handle it” and you can crash all day long without fear.

In the Level D sims I used to train in, a crash caused it to kind of shut down and the computers had to be rebooted.  Which might take 5-10 min.  If the instructor freezes the action, it remains active and just needs to be resumed with a different position loaded.

@JohnK Yeah the older type ones, where any discontinuity in variables causes a jump in the flight model state, where it was hard to recover from (no code for re-alignment) and the whole model needed to be re-initialised. Not much of an issue anymore with modern day sims.

@JohnK That's..... indicative of some pretty crappy programming right there. It definitely indicates an inability to handle in-domain datasets. It surely does not boost my confidence in the reliability, predictability and accuracy of the simulator computers. (speaking as one that has been in computers, including design and implementation of realtime industrial process controllers, for 35 years)

@PcMan, in a sense you are right, but it's not entirely fair. First, flight model is more complicated than any industrial controller. At the same time, it is certified to work exactly as prescribed, and it can be very difficult (i.e. costly) to guarantee it after an out-of-scope situation such as a crash. It may be "OK" 99% of the time, but that's not enough. Second, simulators often use real avionics (and other "controllers") which were never designed to handle crash (or sometimes even pause) in the first place. Finally, industrial software generally sucks in usability, as a rule.

{ it's quite bizarre that apparently older sims would "crash" when they ... "crash". that's just whacky.  fascinating info! }

@PcMan: Perhaps the issue is "overly defensive" programming.  If a simulator is designed to prevent operation if there have been any numerical anomalies since the last boot, that will reliably ensure that no simulations produce results that are seemingly valid but wrong.  Allowing smoother recovery from numerical anomalies may be more convenient, but ensuring that doing so would never cause the system could produce results that are seemingly valid but wrong would be harder than requiring a full restart after any kind of anomalies occur.

@supercat That is very likely, but sad. It's the same philosophy that microsoft windows uses. i.e. "have you tried rebooting it"? That does work, but is a very inefficient, lazy, and hazardous way to handle a complex system. As soon as parameters get wonky, GIVE UP is not a sound philosophy. And god forbid if one of those same programmers later develop a system for an actual airplane, or for ATC, where taking a few minutes off to reboot is not an option

@supercat (and yes, I've seen exactly that in cockpit troubleshooting guidelines for airliners. "pull fuze XXX and reboot the autopilot" is the scariest line i've ever read in a 747 troubleshooting checklist!!)

@PcMan resetting systems to clear faults is very common, where the faults are random and clear without coming back, and the overall system has sufficient redundancy.  Some airplanes will have a reset guide that lists components that can be reset with CBs at the gate to clear a fault for dispatch.  This has a huge impact on dispatch reliability with negligible impact on safety.

@JohnK: Making systems fail-safe, and making systems operate reliably, are contradictory goals.  If a fault has a 0.1% chance of occurring in ways that would be detectable but harmless, a 0.001% chance of occurring in ways that would be detectable, but intolerably bad if ignored, and a 0.000001% chance of occurring in ways that would not be detected until bad things happened, forcing a shutdown when a fault is detected would increase the probability of tolerable failure by 0.1%, but reduce the probability of intolerable failure from 0.001% to 0.0000001%.

If a pilot is doing a License Proficiency Check (LPC), i.e. an annual check of the skills required of a Type Rating (e.g. B757, A330, etc) as endorsed within that pilot's license, which is being conducted by a Type Rated Examiner (TRE) on behalf of the National Aviation Authority (NAA) and that pilot fails the LPC, the TRE is legally required to inform the NAA of the fail and that fail will then be logged against that pilots details as held by the NAA.
Conversely, if the pilot is doing an Operator Proficiency Check (OPC), i.e. a six-monthly check of the skills required of a Type Rating (e.g. B757, A330, etc) as endorsed within the pilot's license, which is being conducted by a Type Rated Examiner (TRE) on behalf of the airline that employs the pilot, and the pilot fails the OPC, the TRE is (typically) only required to inform the airline's Head of Training of the fail and it's then up to the airline's Training Department to decide how to proceed with the failed pilot.
That said, if the fail of an OPC is so egregious as to cause significant doubt that the failed pilot is not fit to operate the aircraft type on which they were being checked, the TRE is still duty bound to inform the NAA, for the latter to then follow it up with the airline that employs the pilot.
Fundamentally, failing a check (be it a LPC or OPC, or ones medical) can well indeed turn into a career limiting event.


text:
What is the future of manufacturer independent jet engine maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) services?
I have noticed that Air France KLM offer a Maintenence (MRO) service for aircraft and jet engines. This sounds like a potentially big threat to engine manufacturers like Rolls Royce who makes around 50% of its revenue from its TotalCare MRO servicing contracts.
I would have thought the price of buying saying a Rolls Royce jet engine would be far higher if an airline customer did not take the MRO TotalCare package from RR and in addition the airline may suffer from reduced engine warranties if they employ a 3rd party to service the engines.
Do you think engine manufacturers business will get competed away by independent MRO businesses like Air France KLM's?

there's still a difference between factory service and third party service see http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7684/comparison-between-smoh-and-sfoh

Here's a question with a set of fantastic answers & closing it seems a shame.

I agree with @curious_cat). Could the question be rephrased to be more objective?

Background:
These days, Rolls-Royce is not any more in the business of selling engines, but selling thrust. The engines send telemetry data to four centers, the biggest one in Derby, in Great Britain, where every engine is under surveillance. An inspection can be scheduled at or spare parts can be directed to the right destination even before the pilots or the airline know that one of their engines has a problem.
By now, 80% of Rolls-Royce engines are sold at a loss which is recouped by a hourly fee paid under the TotalCare (.pdf!) program, and that center in Derby is monitoring maybe 4000 of them at the same time. Rolls-Royce has accumulated a treasure of engine operations data, which enables it to consult airlines on best practices. This makes it very hard for a third party to steal maintenance business from Rolls-Royce. All maintenance cost is covered by the TotalCare fee which now accounts for more than half of Rolls-Royce's revenue.
Other engine manufacturers have begun to copy this approach, and both Airbus and Boeing now offer similar programs for airframe surveillance and maintenance to their customers.
I wonder how Air France KLM can get at the data from the engines. My impression is that Rolls-Royce is in a different position, and third parties cannot compete on an equal basis. Airlines can rent out their shop capacity to others, but the specific business model of Rolls-Royce is directly coupled to them being the manufacturer of those engines and owner of the data it creates.

Awesome, I didn't realise that thank you!

Kampf are you aware of the relative capabilities of GE vs RR in respect to this service MRO offering? I am sure GE do something similar but do they have the data that RR have for example?

No, my information is from The Economist, and I have not heard of the GE program directly. But I bet GE is all over it and can offer the same kind of "pay for thrust by the hour" approach by now. This is much more aligned with the interest of the airlines and leverages the position of the manufacturer. Engine manufacturers who do NOT offer this will be doomed.

@Ben: The GE offer is called OnPoint. See here for more.

Some time ago I was at Microsoft presentation and they mentioned Rolls-Royce as example customer for some Azure-based data-mining services, clearly in relation to the TotalCare program. So the data seem to be hosted by Microsoft somewhere these days.

As Peter Kämpf mentioned, Rolls Royce is unique in that they don't just sell the engines to customers anymore. Rolls Royce will charge by engine time, and take responsibility for maintenace costs. This provides incentive for RR to make their engines as reliable as possible, but it also allows them to choose to keep the maintenance work in-house.
Air France KLM also prefers to keep their maintenance in-house. They have been negotiating with RR to be able to perform maintenance themselves on the Trent XWB engines on their on-order A350 aircraft.
Other manufacturers like CFM, GE, and PW do not operate in the same way. These companies will sell the engines, and the customer gets to choose where to have maintenance performed. All three companies offer their own programs, but they compete against third party services.
Despite not sharing the same strategy for promoting those programs, all of these companies receive substantial revenue from their OEM maintenance programs.

 Peter Kämpf is wrong, He correctly edited his answer.
I just finished my masters degree, writing about Servitization, and used Rolls-Royce PLC as a "textbook" example.
In my thesis, I included an interview with Rolls-Royce Service Researcher Alistair Forbes.
He explained the basis model as such:

Some people misunderstand our business, they think we rent engines out to customers. We don’t. When an airline buys an aircraft they buy the whole aeroplane. That includes the engine. But they pay a fee to us for every hour they fly the aircraft, for every hour the engine is flying, they pay a set fee. We well translate all the expected costs that we would have, that might be on a contract [...] that might be we expect, okay, an engine doesn’t need an overhaul – unlike like you service a car. You don’t actually drive it that much. Airplanes fly around 14 hours a day, and needs an overhaul every 5 to 7 years. Its expensive when it happens but they all stay reliable.
It’s partly this change in business model, before it was 3-4 years, now we try make a more reliable product, time between overhauls increased 5 to 7.
Now if I’ve got a 10 year contract with a customer, and I say, that you pay me 200 dollar for every hour you use the engine. And nothing ever happens, I’ve got 200 dollars per pair and done nothing. But supplied a fantastically reliable engine. The customer is happy and we’re happy. if I make an unreliable engine, the customer is unhappy and they say the engine needs an overhaul every year, and I don’t incline to overhaul it once or twice. That’s bad for both of us.

For reference, the economist wrote an article regarding how RR managed to stay afloat, here they also mention speculations regarding selling engines at a lose, to capture marketshare. http://www.economist.com/node/12887368
(Approx. half way through the article)

I tried to guess which parts are a citation and which are from you, but please re-check.

Seems that Alistair says the same as Peter. If you say Peter is wrong, where specifically would that be?

Check out the edit history. He changed it, now it is correct.

The MRO can do "simple" operations on a engine, like engine wash or borescope inspection; but if the operation is more complicated like complete revision, you have to send the engine to "shop visit" that's mean to the manufacturer.
Sometimes the manufacturer send employee to the MRO place to do the work when this work don't need special tools.

Indepent engine MROs still have chances to work on sunset and mature engines only. However for the new generation engines the demonation will be by the OEMs only.Though, these shops will not be able to handle the shop visits by themselves but need to off load some of the work to indepenedent MROs like Jordan Airmotive,AF/KLM and others.

"Demonation" isn't a word and I can't work out what you meant to write.


text:
What causes aircraft to swerve during takeoff?
I notice on some commercial flights that the aircraft can begin to swerve left-to-right during takeoff before we leave the ground. Sometimes this can become very exaggerated, very hard left-to-right swerving. This is typically from around mid-way through the takeoff run, becoming most severe immediately before takeoff.
My first thought was perhaps it is an inconsistency in the runway from the airport I frequent but have noticed it once or twice at other airports as well, and across different carriers. However, it feels more like when driving a car and you swerve, then overcompensate the other direction and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Other factors may include wind - but I've been in high-wind takeoffs before and it didn't have the same jerking motion.
Any explanation to this, or am I just paranoid?

*Apologies for lack of knowledge re: terminology

turbulence from the previous flight perhaps?

It is probably nothing.   But, a few questions.  What size plane are your usually flying on?  (Smaller planes move easier.)   Is it common for the airport your usually fly from have crosswinds? (Crosswind means as soon as you lift off some control input is required  to get the nose of the plane turned into the wind.)  Do you sit in the back of the plane.  (Center of rotation is further away in the wings. Any rotation is more pronounced further away).

I most often fly Jetblue (A320) from PBI to JFK and have experienced it on Southwest (737-800) from FLL->LAS. I don't think I've ever experienced crosswinds at PBI or JFK; I think I'd remember it!

I know you said that you don't think it's a crosswind, but honestly it most likely is.  As the plane speeds up and the wings start to generate more and more lift the plane is more easily affected by cross wind.  So, as you speed up, it gets harder and harder to keep the plane straight.  Throw in some gusts, and you're going to get some jerking motions as well.  Especially if that gust decreases the lift of the aircraft, the wheels suddenly catch the ground more and the craft is suddenly tugged harder than the pilot anticipated...
Here's a video of a Boeing 777 taking off in a heavy crosswind that should illustrate the point more.

Crosswind can cause it, especially if there are gusts involved.  It would be more common on turboprops as well since they have more left turning tendencies from the engines, such as torque, p-factor, etc.  In these airplanes the pilot has to compensate by holding right rudder, and sometimes they end up swerving a little bit as they try to find the right balance.
In any case, the swerving is not nearly as bad as it feels, the farther to the back you are the more you're going to feel it as well.

I am not an expert, but it could be because the main Yaw control moves from the nose wheel to the rudder. During slow flight, you need to be more forceful on the rudder as there is not much control.


text:
What ICAO codes are reserved for TIS-B use?
Using my ADS-B receiver, In the past few months I've seen a lot of what I think are TIS-B contacts.  They seem to cycle through a few different ICAO ID prefixes, but I see a lot that are of the form (in hex) 29xxxx and 31xxxx. E.g. 298c12 and 318512.  I'm looking for a specification of exactly which ranges of ICAO codes can be used for TIS-B.

In this answer I'll assume you are analysing ADS-B data on 1090 MHz, which is the defacto global standard. I am less familiar with the ADS-B on UAT (987 MHz) which is used in addition to 1090MHz in the USA, but I assume the same logic applies.
There are no ICAO addresses assigned to TIS-B targets.
If an aircraft has an ICAO-address which is detected by the surveillance sensors (e.g. Mode S radar, multilateration system) and the aircraft is not transmitting ADS-B, then a TIS-B target will be created with the ICAO 24 bit address.
If an aircraft has no ICAO-address, (i.e. it has a Mode A/C transponder / ATCRBS) and is not transmitting ADS-B, then a TIS-B target will be created with a 24 bit address that consists of the Mode A code (first 12 bits) and a unique surveillance system track number (last 12 bits). Primary radar targets are allocated a "Mode A code" of all zeros.
To determine whether you receive an ADS-B message or a TIS-B message you should start looking at the Downlink Format (DF, first 5 bits of the message) if the DF = 17, then it is an ADS-B message. If the DF = 18 then you look at the control field (CF, bits 6-8). CF = 0 and CF = 1 are ADS-B messages. CF = 2,3 & 5 are TIS-B messages. CF = 6 are ADS-R messages. CF = 4 are TIS-B / ADS-R system status messages.
The TIS-B messages contain an ICAO/Mode A Flag (IMF) bit which indicates how to interpret the 24 bit address. The location of this bits varies by message type (e.g. position, velocity) and replaces a bit in the ADS-B format that has no meaning in TIS-B.

Thanks, @DeltaLima.  I'd seen your other ADS-B related answers and was hoping you might be able to help with this question :)

@JohnWiseman I am professionally involved in standardising and implementing the whole thing. Anything tagged [tag:ADS-B] draws my attention :-)

@JohnWiseman btw, what kind of receiver are you using?

I'm using an RTL-SDR with dump1090 as a decoder.  When I started in 2013 I never saw TIS-B reports, but these days I see a lot: Ground vehicles at LAX, mode A/C-only aircraft in the air, and sometimes TIS-B contacts that seem to mirror aircraft that are broadcasting their own ADS-B position.

@JohnWiseman the ground vehicles at LAX probably have ADS-B transmitters. Some aircraft broadcast ADS-B positions with low quality (no integrity) and indicate this in the message (FTC = 9). In such case a TIS-B target will still be generated as the ADS-B data is not really usable. Aircraft installed ASD-B receivers (and ATC ADS-B receivers as well) will filter out these low integrity messages.

978UAT uses a completely different message format, but it has the same address types and logic as 1090ES.


text:
Are there examples of diverse departure assessment departures in the US or Canada?
If there is no published departure procedure at an airport with an approach  then you can use what is referred to as a diverse departure assessment departure. I would think that you might find these in places like Kansas and Florida, but a cursory look in these areas doesn’t yield any examples.
Can anyone give examples of diverse departure assessment departures in the US or Canada?

A diverse vector area (radar vectors) meets the requirements of a diverse departure assessment but uses radar vectors.  These procedures are listed in the chart supplements book.

@wbeard52 Many of the Diverse Vector Area (Radar Vectors) require a climb rate of greater than 200' per nautical mile, so they do not meet the requirements of a diverse departure assessment departure. The first airport I looked at, KSMO (Santa Monica) has a DVA(RV) departure but it would not qualify for a DDA departure because of the mountains north of it. I suspect that most would not qualify for for a DDA departure, that’s why they have radar vectors.

That's interesting.  If that is so, the Instrument Procedures Handbook, pg. 1-38 needs to be updated.  "This type of departure procedure meets the TERPs criteria for diverse departures, obstacles and terrain avoidance in which random radar vectors below the MVA/MIA may be issued to departing traffic."

A diverse departure is a default departure procedure, named "omnidirectional" by ICAO.
To answer your question: It is normally not published. The only thing that is required on aeronautical publications is a wording preventing or limiting the use of this procedure.

BUCKLEY AFB (KBKF),  AURORA, CO  TAKEOFF MINIMUMS  AND (OBSTACLE)
  DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
  11013
Diverse departure not authorized.
  Use published  departure procedures
  for obstacle avoidance.

Sometimes there is a reminder that it can be used:

CANNON AFB (KCVS), CLOVIS, NM
  TAKEOFF MINIMUMS  AND (OBSTACLE)
  DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
  ORIG 15064
Diverse departure authorized all runways.

This default procedure is valid only when:

Not explicitly prohibited,
There is at least one instrument approach for the airport
No obstacle departure procedure (ODP) and
No standard departure (SID) has been published for the airport.

A diverse departure is conducted this way:

Cross the runway end at 35 ft, maintain heading and a 200 ft/NM gradient until 400 ft above the runway end. The 200 ft/NM gradient is TERPS' minimum climb gradient, and corresponds to ICAO's 3.3% for the minimum procedure design gradient.
Continue or turn in any direction while maintaining a minimum rate of climb of 200 ft/NM.
Maintain this rate of climb until reaching a 1,000 ft obstacle clearance or a 2,000ft obstacle clearance in mountainous areas.

Source
The 40:1 ratio (152 ft/NM) delimits a surface from the runway end, named the obstacle clearance surface (OCS). The diverse departure ensures being above the OCS until enroute.
Whenever the conditions exist for a diverse departure, it is implicit ATC authorities have assessed the absence of obstacle above the OCS. This assessment is named the diverse departure assessment.
Given the 40:1 slope and obstacle clearances, the area assessed may have a radius from 25 to 46 NM.

Great explanation. Are you aware of any examples where it is applicable, but not listed in the Chart Supplement?

In Ontario, Kincardine has two RNAV (GNSS) approaches, and no ODP/SID. Therefore a diverse departure is possible. See page 130 in the large CAP file or on this image. I was able to confirm the validity of the diverse departure because a wind farm was built and needed the area to be reassessed.

"Continue or turn in any direction while maintaining a minimum rate of climb of 156 ft/NM (40:1 slope)." Are you sure the minimum climb rate is156ft/NM? I recall it's 200ft/NM, which is 3.3% or 2 degree.

@lemonincider: You're right the rate is 200 and 156 (actually 152) is the slope of the OCS. Corrected. Thanks!

When you see this symbol on the approach plate, it means that either there are non-standard takeoff minimums or that there is a published departure procedure. So one way to find airports with a diverse departure is to look for ones without that symbol. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
I downloaded the TPP documents for Florida and California and started looking for airports without the symbol. The only ones I found were a couple of military fields in FLorida. Kansas and Nebraska are pretty flat too so I looked at the TPP NC2 plates and found KAIA.

There are no notes for this approach and none of the approaches at this airport have Alternate Takeoff Minimums symbol. If you look at the approach plate there is only one obstacle several miles away and about 1800' above the airport. It would be hard to hit it with a standard IFR climb.
Dodge City, Harper Muni, Neodesha Muni, Platsmouth Muni, Pratt Regional, Smith Center Regional, Cessna Aircraft Field (but not the Beech Aircraft field just a few miles away) all have diverse departure assessment departures. So there aren’t a lot of them, but they aren’t unicorns.


text:
Can I attach a camera to the outside of my aircraft in the USA?
I've been watching a lot of videos shot with mini cameras (like a GoPro) from outside the aircraft. Some look like they're mounted on or under wings, others from underneath the aircraft. This looks cool, I want to do it!
I know the FAA is pretty strict on unapproved modifications to aircraft and I've heard that attaching cameras can conflict with this. What should I know before I attempt to attach a camera to the outside of my aircraft?

Here's an awesome video that Gizmodo just posted actually, of a GoPro on an A340: These guys put a GoPro camera inside a running airplane jet engine

The NTSB actually recommended the use of exterior cameras to the FAA in 2012.
It appears to be something of a grey area, but it looks like you should contact your local FSDO for approval of an external load if you're permanently fixing a camera to a plane.
The grey area comes in that if the camera is temporarily attached, you shouldn't need special approval, but in practicality it could come loose and damage the plane.
GoPro says this about affixing their cameras to planes:

Industrial strength suction cup. Strong enough to pull dents out of a car door or stay attached to an airplane at 200mph+, proven though not endorsed by GoPro per FAA rules.

There's a forum thread where someone asked the FSDO to sign it off as a Minor Alteration, and it was determined that a short logbook entry would suffice:

Temporarily installed a GoPro camera mounted to a standard inspection panel on (Left/Right) lower wing in place of the standard inspection panel. There are no electrical connections associated with this installation. This is a minor alteration as it has no appreciable effect on performance, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness (refer to FAR 1.1 Major Alteration and FAR 21.93). A net weight change of 9 oz is incurred with the temporary installation; therefore, the weight and balance change is negligible (refer to AC 43.13 1B, 10-2 (c)).

A warning about "industrial strength suction cups" and why they make FAA inspectors frown -- Remember that as you climb the ambient pressure decreases. Climb high enough and the pressure outside the suction cup will equal the pressure inside the suction cup - which means "No more suction!" and the camera will depart the aircraft. This happened to a friend of mine in flight, fortunately with the camera mounted inside the aircraft so all that happened was it landed in a passenger's lap.

Any thoughts on how this might apply to mounting brackets installed on wing struts (high or dual wing types)?

@Kyle It's my understanding that that would be classed as a permanent alteration. I could be wrong though.

I spoke with my local FSDO about this recently and was told that while he couldn't say it was approved, as long as it isn't modifying the aircraft and is just strapped to a strut or tie down it would be unlikely to be an issue. He said that a log book entry wouldn't hurt, but ultimately the FAA hasn't ruled on exactly what is required. He also said that they have bigger fish to fry.

The NTSB recommendation was however regarding large planes and cameras with video output in cockpit for pilots to better see clearance from obstacles during taxi. At least A380 includes some in standard equipment.


text:
Are flame holders made of a special material other than that used in combustion chamber?
Are the flame holders made of materials which have higher friction coefficients than the combustion chamber in order to create turbulence?

Additional information about materials: What material is used to make the hot sections of jet engines?


text:
How do GFRP and CFRP compare?
I have seen that aircraft mostly use CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in large composition. But in some places like the leading edge of the wing, fin, and radome, GFRP (glass-fiber reinforced plastic) is used, why?

The reason for using glassfiber on radome coverings is simple: Electromagnetic transparency. Carbon fiber conducts electricity, so it will absorb much of what the antenna radiates away or "listens" for. Glassfibers are good insulators and transparent to radar waves.
The reason for glassfiber on forward-facing surfaces is impact tolerance. Compared to carbon fiber, glassfibers have a higher elongation at fracture and are a homogenous material. First to the elongation point:
Energy absorption is the integral under the stress-strain curve, and a higher elongation at fracture gives glassfiber better energy absorption qualities. The peak loads for carbon might be a bit higher, but carbon breaks at an elongation of less than 2% while glass stretches to 5% before rupture. Both, however, are inferior to most metals which have a phase of plastic deformation before rupture.
The second point is based in the anisotropic nature of carbon fiber:
When a carbon fiber is loaded in a direction away from its lengthwise axis, it will break easily. Glass, being an isotropic material, has the same strength in all directions, so a glassfiber composite is much better in taking arbitrary and impact loads.

Now that the question is much more general, here are the main differences:

Price must come first on this list. Glassfiber is dirt cheap compared to carbon fiber. If I look up the prices for woven material at Aircraft Spruce, a yard of 50" graphite cloth is about 30 USD while a comparable E-glass cloth runs at less than 10 USD.
Density is next: Carbon fiber weighs 1.7 g/mm³ but glassfiber 2.5 g/mm³. Both have similar strength, so a carbon structure will easily be lighter than a glassfiber structure.
Stiffness: Carbon fiber is about three times stiffer than glassfiber. Extreme varieties like pitch-based carbon fibers can be up to 10 times stiffer but offer few benefits. The higher stiffness produces less flex of a wing spar under the same load. Open class gliders need carbon fiber spar caps, or their wings would have too much dihedral in flight.
Fiber diameter: Glassfibers are much thicker than carbon fibers, which makes them better in compression loads. Finer fibers need better support from the epoxy matrix against buckling.

I mentioned conductivity already, but one funny consequence from the anisotropic nature of carbon fiber has not been mentioned yet: Along their fiber axis, carbon fibers have a negative coefficient of thermal expansion. When combined with the proper amount of epoxy resin, this allows to build structures which keep their length constant when temperature changes. Note that the structure will still expand perpendicular to the fiber axis when heated, though.
Another peculiarity is that transparency reverses in the optical spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Now glass is transparent and carbon is opaque. This made the designers of the first carbon fiber fuselage install a lightbulb in the tailboom, so the preflight inspection can be done in the same way as it is done in glassfiber gliders.

"its lengthwise axis, it will break easily" this is true for anything reinforced anything, even steel reinforced concrete. Is it impossible to layout carbon fiber homogeneously or what?

@user3528438: No, carbon is anisotropic. Steel and glass are isotropic, which means they have the same properties in all directions. Carbon, on the other hand, is super strong along the fiber axis but weak perpendicular to it.

Well how does that apply the material reinforced by it? Is it impossible to layout carbon fiber homogeneously or what?

@user3528438: You need several plies and can use knitted or woven materials, but still: A chain is as weak as its weakest link. Carbon makes great spar caps but is problematic in impact loads. Face it.

Peter kampf : sir iam working on carbon nanotubes particle infused GFRP does it going.to affect the electrical properties of CFRP , or how can it be checked

@kcihtrak: Depends on the amount of nanotubes. Normally, their conductivity is only great along their lengthwise axis. If their density is too low to form a continuous string of abutting nanotubes, conductivity will drop. There are special instruments for the measurement of electrical conductivity and you need to test at different voltages and temperatures.


text:
Can gas turbine engines be used for railways
Is it possible that gas turbine engines can be used for railways  , even though it may posses some risk such as Foreign object damage , can it be efficient such as electric trains but it can act as stand alone system

Not sure if AviationSE is the right place for this question.

Wikipedia: Gas Turbine Locomotive

If you mean using the exhaust thrust to push the train, I am not sure. If you mean using the power from the shaft of the turbine to derive mechanical work, it's been done: JetTrain .
Note that the gas turbine was only efficient for high speeds, and there were more traditional drive trains (diesel electric) for lower speed operations and idling.

The turbojet train has been tried.

Also consider that many trains are electric, and gas turbine generators are used to generate electricity, so in a sense they're turbine trains.  With all the advantages of leaving most of your engine and its problems elsewhere :-)

This has been done multiple times, see Turbojet train. Only few really jet-powered trains have been built, for research in high-speed rail. Gas turbine locomotive is a less extreme attempt to use a turbine for powering the wheels (rather than moving the train with its direct thrust).